- 18 Posts
- 212 Comments
Once the war in Ukraine is over, weaponized drones won’t just vanish. They’re already made by companies with different level of ethics and any country able to pay is or will be able to buy them. Sooner or later, like many weapons, organised crime will get their hands on them, and use them outside of battlefield.
There’s no way to completely prevent it, but we could at least limit damage by regulating the shit out of drones.
No need to look very far. The answer is within the subheading of the article being discussed here. You don’t even need to click the link nor to read the article, since tartigrada included this information in the quote that’s part of this post’s text:
Donald Trump is reportedly advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which would be a violation of the Logan Act.
There miners robot don’t exist yet, but they would probably require high tech components and manufacturing capabilities for all these different components (motors, electronics, batteries, sensors, …).
Self replicating robots is still science fiction. If we wanted to build such robots in space, we’d need to build and launch manufacturing facilities in space before we can actually build robots in space.
Hypothetically, it would only make sense to mine rare materials in space, and it would only have environmental benefits if we return significant amount compared to the mass of rockets we send into space.
There is no coal/gas/oil in space, and even if extracting these resources were cleaner, burning that stuff would still be disastrous.
Space mining would be at best viable for very niche uses for a few material. It won’t bring us infinite clean resources, overall we still need to reduce extraction of resources.
I was about to say people can walk and chew gum. But this kind of miss the point.
This is not space exploration, this is not for science’s sake. This is about extracting resources, and making a profit. I heard one of these companies perpetuate the idea that there’s virtually infinite resource, which imply we can continue with humanity’s exponential growth without negative consequences. That mindset landed us in the inextricable mess we’re in.
That’s unfortunate.
Technically this hasn’t been approved by the General Assembly yet, and then individual countries would need to ratify it. But press coverage suggest it’s a done deal.
For the treaty to go into force, 40 nations have to ratify it.
In many places, ratifying a treaty requires parliament approval, so it’s not going to be quick. Talk to your representative once this treaty comes up in your parliement’s agenda.
Bitcoin is not practical for small purshases, because transaction takes several minutes, and have around 50USD per-transaction fee. Note the cost of fees and value of bitcoin vary wildly, so the same amount of bitcoin may be enough to pay rent in August, but not in September.
On a more ethical level, it’s also quite bad because of the insane energy cost of bitcoin transactions.
This is an opinion piece… It’s clearly marked as being an opinion. Even though it has solid arguments, and probably hold some truth, it’s not an actual news article written by NYT staff, it’s not pretending to be a factual reporting by a journalist nor an objective truth.
Everyone is free to agree or disagree with it. To buy, sell, or hold.
It would be wise however to consider the argument themselves, and not decide go to in one direction just because the author/publisher is someone you like or dislike.
negative response to AI disclosure was even stronger for “high-risk” products and services, […] such as expensive electronics, medical devices or financial services. Because failure carries more potential risk, […] mentioning AI for these types of descriptions may make consumers more wary […]
That sounds like a rational reaction.
There’s a lot of hand waving when companies talk about AI safety. I would be more likely pay for a product with some AI if marketing promote its effectiveness without highlighting AI, than if they mentioned AI with vague assurance about safety.
The last paragraph is interesting.
Sure, generating harmful responses 7.5% of the time is better than 51% of the time. But we’re still far from a safe LLM, if that’s even possible.
I’d rather companies would NOT make LLMs available publicly as a service unless the rate is < 1%. What they’re doing now isn’t responsible.
That sounds a bit contradictory but there’s an important details. Part of the accusation seems to be about picking winners, ie giving subsidies to specific companies rather than the sector as a whole.
The anti-subsidy investigation has been intended to confirm the Commission’s allegations that manufacturers of battery electric vehicles (BEV) in China benefit from countervailable – i.e. specific and advantageous to the receiving companies – subsidies
If that’s true then a tweak to subsidies might technically solve the issue without changing the EU-China competition balance.
IMHO the EU should focus on carbon border tax, and on doing it quickly and efficiently. The idea is taxing import from countries that don’t tax pollution, or at least less than the EU does, to make competing companies subject to similar emissions tax/regulation.
The incident, he added, amounted to “piracy”.
That exact word came to mind when reading about the incident.
And there is international law on piracy:
there is universal jurisdiction over piracy on the high seas. Pirates are denied protection of the flag state and all states have the right to seize a pirate ship on the high seas and to prosecute in national courts.[
This is a common issue in software, not limited to scripting. Software are getting more and more layers of wrappers/adapter code, like a Russian doll. It contributes to dependency hell, as each layer brings new dependencies.
Developers often find it easier to wrap existing apps and software, and add another layer on top, rather than improving or replacing what exists.
Not surprising. If there’s a way for a non-admin user to use this, it means there’s probably a way for a non-admin process to access the data.
Even if if were more secure, there’s probably plenty of ways for attackers to escalate privileges to admin.
The bigger issue is Microsoft providing an official tool for snooping on user activity. Malware won’t have to install their own, and recall taking screenshots periodically won’t be considered anomalous behaviour since it’s an official Microsoft service.
124 countries isn’t nothing. The list include countries from all continents, many Europeans and African countries, Australia, Canada, Mexico, … . Being under an arrest warrant which applies in all 124 countries would be a major pain, even if USA & China & Russia are missing from that list.
- @Hirom@beehaw.org to
- •
- yewtu.be
- •
- 9M
- •
Better late than never.